conspiracy theories

[rodsky]

---

so if i played a simulation of going to the moon perfectly it means i could go to the moon already?

If what you're simulating is an existing propulsion technology that is launch-capable, yes, you can go to the moon. This is the current philosophy of Branson, Musk, Carmack and Bigelow(owners of the first Commercial Space companies, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX and Armadillo Aerospace, Bigelow Aerospace, respectively)--Newtonian physics is Newtonian Physics, and that's why there's no reason for us to not to be able to land on the moon. Orbital mechanics and Kepler's Laws are laws because they are established as fact. A spacecraft in cislunar space obeys these laws, because Newtonian principles are fact--it's not going anywhere and it's not going to change, unless for some reason the universe itself changes in a snap of a finger, or if we reach a velocity that would include relativistic effects (which is, another story).

-RODION

[Soul Doctor]

Mamili man kag unsay tubagon nimo Doc Wala nimo gitubag akong question:

Explain to me how I managed to fly a real airplane without formal training, using only Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, 2000, 2002, and 2004 as my simulation, if it's only "a video game"?






Turn them off? And lose navigation/bearing data in the process, thereby throwing the spacecraft off course?

ADDENDUM: Another great example that simulation "...puts you there."
iRacing.com | Greger Huttu’s (Nearly) Perfect Adventure
Geek, rebooted - BBC Top Gear

-RODION

ah! so its about you flying a plane without formal training.
congratulations.

bravo.
and we have to believe everything you say from now on.

and it seems in the picture that you are flying the plane alone.

please dont tell me you landed the plane by yourself using flight simulation experience.

[rodsky]

nasa said thats how they would do it.

Give me the exact quote/link please.

-RODION

[rodsky]

ah! so its about you flying a plane without formal training.
congratulations.

bravo.
and we have to believe everything you say from now on.

and it seems in the picture that you are flying the plane alone.

please dont tell me you landed the plane by yourself using flight simulation experience.

I did not post that to imply that everyone has to believe everything I say--I used that as an example of how effective an accurate simulation is at depicting a real event, because the laws of physics in a simulation is a representation of how things operate in the real world. Grabe man sad imong tono Doc, nganong naging personalan ang tono ng boses mo? I was just asking a question, so just answer the question based on the example given. Instead of answering my question you're now trying to "paint" me into someone with a some kind of bad rep para dili ko tuohan sa mga readers. Low blow doc.

Alone? Klaro kaayo from the photo that I'm seated at the right-hand seat (F/O) position, and that the person on the left hand seat is the P.I.C. of the aircraft--it's against civilian flight rules to allow a non-trained person to fly an aircraft from the left seat of a gen-av aircraft. What are you trying to insinuate here? Nga nangilad ko? That I'm CLAIMING that I flew the plane alone? Low blow.

And no, I didnt land the plane myself because that is against civilian flight rules, but if I had to (i.e. emergency), I could.

-RODION

[Soul Doctor]

If what you're simulating is an existing propulsion technology that is launch-capable, yes, you can go to the moon. This is the current philosophy of Branson, Musk, Carmack and Bigelow(owners of the first Commercial Space companies, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX and Armadillo Aerospace, Bigelow Aerospace, respectively)--Newtonian physics is Newtonian Physics, and that's why there's no reason for us to not to be able to land on the moon. Orbital mechanics and Kepler's Laws are laws because they are established as fact. A spacecraft in cislunar space obeys these laws, because Newtonian principles are fact--it's not going anywhere and it's not going to change, unless for some reason the universe itself changes in a snap of a finger, or if we reach a velocity that would include relativistic effects (which is, another story).

-RODION

wow big names and big words, they are just too much for ordinary people like me to handle.
i have to shy away from that.

all i know is that velocity of escape from earth is equal to the velocity of approach in the moon.
and try to land using that velocity without air resistance and atmosphere. it should be fun to watch.

but talk to me in chemical terms anytime.
im just a chemical engineer.
we can talk whenever about physics, chemistry, combustion, temperatures and pressure and melting points of steel.
this is why i love to talk about 911.
because they claimed it was the fuel that melted the steel.

they can do that only if the building was burned in an oven where the conditions are controlled.
but in an open air? its a joke.

[Soul Doctor]

I did not post that to imply that everyone has to believe everything I say--I used that as an example of how effective an accurate simulation is at depicting a real event, because the laws of physics in a simulation is a representation of how things operate in the real world. Grabe man sad imong tono Doc, nganong naging personalan ang tono ng boses mo? I was just asking a question, so just answer the question based on the example given. Instead of answering my question you're now trying to "paint" me into someone with a some kind of bad rep para dili ko tuohan sa mga readers. Low blow doc.

Alone? Klaro kaayo from the photo that I'm seated at the right-hand seat (F/O) position, and that the person on the left hand seat is the P.I.C. of the aircraft--it's against civilian flight rules to allow a non-trained person to fly an aircraft from the left seat of a gen-av aircraft. What are you trying to insinuate here? Nga nangilad ko? That I'm CLAIMING that I flew the plane alone? Low blow.

And no, I didnt land the plane myself because that is against civilian flight rules, but if I had to (i.e. emergency), I could.

-RODION

no i did not insinuate nga nangilad ka.
it is just hard to think that you could fly the plane ALONE using flight simulation and without proper training.
and more impossible to think that you can LAND that plane alone with mere flight simulation experience.
thus the video games analogy.

and why do you think it is against civilian flight rules?

[Soul Doctor]

the simulation is only as good as the program or programmer.

the wtc building also has simulated studies used in the design of the building.
it can withstand earthquakes and high winds, and even even a direct hit from a Boeing 747.

i guess the simulation did not work in the 911, or did it?

[rodsky]

wow big names and big words, they are just too much for ordinary people like me to handle.
i have to shy away from that.

Seriously? Or just trying to avoid the discussion? A rather lame way to walk away from a simple point.

all i know is that velocity of escape from earth is equal to the velocity of approach in the moon.
and try to land using that velocity without air resistance and atmosphere. it should be fun to watch.

The escape velocity from earth is 7.1 km/s, which is what the SIVB stack (the part of the spacecraft consisting of the SIVB (stage 3) plus the LM, plus the CSM.) needed to achieve to get to the moon. But since it was already in LEO (low earth orbit), it just needed a delta-v of 3.05 to 3.25 km/s (10,000 to 10,600 ft/s) to free itself from LEO. This entire portion is called the Translunar Injection phase of the mission:

Trans Lunar Injection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ergo, the CSM+LM stack needed only to slow down by a factor of 3.05 to 3.25 km/s to establish lunar orbit, once it's within the gravitational influence of the moon. This is easily achieved by the service propulsion system of the CSM (Apollo Command/Service Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) which can produce a thrust of about 20,500 pounds-force (91,000 N). Ergo, slowing down for LOI (lunar orbit insertion) is a non-issue for the CSM+LM stack.

but talk to me in chemical terms anytime.
im just a chemical engineer.
we can talk whenever about physics, chemistry, combustion, temperatures and pressure and melting points of steel.
this is why i love to talk about 911.
because they claimed it was the fuel that melted the steel.

they can do that only if the building was burned in an oven where the conditions are controlled.
but in an open air? its a joke.

Then, why insist on the Apollo Hoax theories if you yourself indicate you like to talk more on 911?

the simulation is only as good as the program or programmer.

the wtc building also has simulated studies used in the design of the building.
it can withstand earthquakes and high winds, and even even a direct hit from a Boeing 747.

i guess the simulation did not work in the 911, or did it?

I'm not into 9/11 stuff, you can disprove it all you want, but please, before making statements like "...and even even a direct hit from a Boeing 747..." please do paste links and/or cite sources. It makes your statements more credible.

-RODION

[rodsky]

double post

[Soul Doctor]

sorry i cant do links. but you can look it up yourself.
just type van allen belt radiation.

although i copied a line from there for your convenience.

The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation. An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per year.